What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Scientific facts which are objective are based on the collective decision of a specific group of scientist peers [which may be limited to 100++] with the authority to do so after being justified within the Scientific Method.

I see this as a simple matter of misunderstanding the meaning of the word objective.

Objectivity is independence from opinion. That we should have a moral goal is an opinion, and it remains an opinion even it's universally held. So a moral 'ought' can't be a fact - and so objective - even if everyone agrees to it. If they did, the only fact would be that everyone has that goal.

If we claim that nothing we believe or say can be independent from opinion - so that what we call objectivity is impossible - then, of course, we're saying that morality can't be objective either - and the case for moral objectivism collapses. We can't have it both ways.

Similarly, if we hold to a consensus theory of truth - that what we call truth can only be a matter of agreement - such as the opinion of a few scientists - then, of course, this applies to all truth-claims, including the claim that morality is objective. Again, we can't have it both ways.

We can always use the words objectivity and truth in non-standard ways. But then we have to explain those new uses, or we're equivocating.

[Skepdick]

Scientific facts which are objective are based on the collective decision of a specific group of scientist peers [which may be limited to 100++] with the authority to do so after being justified within the Scientific Method.

I see this as a simple matter of misunderstanding the meaning of the word objective.

Objectivity is independence from opinion.

Objective scientific facts are EXACTLY THE SAME THING as collectively held scientific opinions.

We only SAY that facts are "independent from opinion", but they aren't. What we say about things is not what they are (these are your words).

If somebody is mis-understanding the word "objective" and how it's being used, it's you Peter.

Objectivity is a subjective construct.
Mind-independence is a mind construct.

If we claim that nothing we believe or say can be independent from opinion - so that what we call objectivity is impossible - then, of course, we're saying that morality can't be objective either - and the case for moral objectivism collapses. We can't have it both ways.

Then why are you trying to have it both ways?

Either the word "objective" has an accepted and shared social meaning or it doesn't. Most people agree that the laws of physics are objectively true.

It just happens that you don't understand how the word "objective" is being used.

Morality is already objective (given the way that most people and most scientists) use the word objective.
And the way that the word "objective" is being used is trivially: The evidence FOR the hypothesis outweighs the evidence AGAINST the hypothesis.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Scientific facts which are objective are based on the collective decision of a specific group of scientist peers [which may be limited to 100++] with the authority to do so after being justified within the Scientific Method.

I see this as a simple matter of misunderstanding the meaning of the word objective.

Objectivity is independence from opinion. That we should have a moral goal is an opinion, and it remains an opinion even it's universally held. So a moral 'ought' can't be a fact - and so objective - even if everyone agrees to it. If they did, the only fact would be that everyone has that goal.

If we claim that nothing we believe or say can be independent from opinion - so that what we call objectivity is impossible - then, of course, we're saying that morality can't be objective either - and the case for moral objectivism collapses. We can't have it both ways.

Similarly, if we hold to a consensus theory of truth - that what we call truth can only be a matter of agreement - such as the opinion of a few scientists - then, of course, this applies to all truth-claims, including the claim that morality is objective. Again, we can't have it both ways.

We can always use the words objectivity and truth in non-standard ways. But then we have to explain those new uses, or we're equivocating.

You got the wrong meaning of opinion;

opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

I have gone through this many times with you.
There is a continuum from opinion to belief [personal conviction] to knowledge [justified true belief, fact].

• Example;
  Einstein may have some early opinion [hunches] re his "E = MC2".
  When he had proven the theory to himself on paper that was his personal belief.
  E = MC2 was only a theory, fact and knowledge when Einstein belief was tested, verified and justified to be true to empirical evidence and intersubjectively agreed via consensus by his peers.

Don't abuse the meaning of 'opinion' again.

Objective is independent of opinion and beliefs but objectivity is justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus.

Scientific facts are objective because they are justified true beliefs based on intersubjective consensus.
Note objectivity is fundamentally intersubjectivity, thus reduced to subjectivity in a meta perspective.

As I had argued, secular objective absolute moral laws are moral facts because they are not opinion nor beliefs but rather these moral facts are justified from empirical evidences and polished with the highest application of critical thinking.

Note for example, "killing a human being by another human being" is morally wrong. This is very objective and is a moral fact as justified by "no sane person would volunteer to be killed" [under not peer pressure etc.] via the highest application of reason.
If do not agree, show me evidence from the historical database of humanity, where any sane human would volunteer to be killed.

The bottom line is your approach to morality is like navigating a ship in rocky waters based on a moving lighthouse.
My approach is based on a fixed lighthouse [the objective absolute moral law].

[Skepdick]

Note for example, "killing a human being by another human being" is morally wrong. This is very objective and is a moral fact as justified by "no sane person would volunteer to be killed" [under not peer pressure etc.] via the highest application of reason.

DUMB VERBALIST!

If do not agree, show me evidence from the historical database of humanity, where any sane human would volunteer to be killed.

Are you bolding the word "sane" so that your escape route to the No True Scotsman fallacy remains open? So that you can reserve the right to claim that any human who volunteers to be killed is not sane? Of course you are! DUMB PHILOSOPHER!

Here is an example where SANE humans volunteering to be killed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia


* Bolded/highlighted/enlarged the word "sane" so that the DUMB PHILOSOPHER can't dispute the sanity of the patients.

[Peter Holmes]

V A wrote:

'Objective is independent of opinion and beliefs but objectivity is justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus.'

This is a contradiction in terms, and therefore false. Objectivity can't be those two things at the same time.

And the JTB definition of knowledge is a conceptual mess anyway.

If the earth is an oblate spheroid, then the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is true, independent from opinion. Justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus has absolutely nothing to do with the truth-value of the assertion. If the intersubjective consensus was that the earth is flat, that wouldn't matter a flying f**k. You're confusing what people think is true with what is true.

[Sculptor]

Note for example, "killing a human being by another human being" is morally wrong. This is very objective and is a moral fact as justified by "no sane person would volunteer to be killed" [under not peer pressure etc.] via the highest application of reason.

It is clear to me that you do not have the slightest idea of what objective means.
Humans kill others all the time and for very good reasons.
I personally do no think this is a good idea, but just because I reason it to be so , does not make it objective. It makes it MY opinion. It might also be YOUR opinion, but two opinions (subjective by definition) do not make an objective fact.

I wonder if you also have some exceptions to this rule as I do. Some accept warfare and judicial killing such as execution as perfectly acceptable. And I for one think it is perfectly okay to terminate a person who is terminally ill or has just had enough of life for their own reason.
People argue about where killing is morally acceptable, few have an absolute position.
You have not found an objective moral fact, you have only pushed your subjective opinion.

[Skepdick]

This is a contradiction in terms, and therefore false. Objectivity can't be those two things at the same time.

There is no contradiction. A term can belong to multiple, intersecting categories all at once.

The insistence on clean, categorical separation is an ideological error. It's the most prevalent bias in Western philosophy.

[Sculptor]

V A wrote:

'Objective is independent of opinion and beliefs but objectivity is justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus.'

This is a contradiction in terms, and therefore false. Objectivity can't be those two things at the same time.

And the JTB definition of knowledge is a conceptual mess anyway.

If the earth is an oblate spheroid, then the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is true, independent from opinion. Justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus has absolutely nothing to do with the truth-value of the assertion. If the intersubjective consensus was that the earth is flat, that wouldn't matter a flying f**k. You're confusing what people think is true with what is true.

Actually since all we have is inter-subjective opinion upon which to agree our objective "facts" the definition is as good as any other.
Clearly, though, not all inter-subjective consensuses are as good as all the others. Ask any church what they think of God - then compare it to what they say in a Mosque, or Temple.

I would suggest that to get a good and reliable objective fact you would have to apply the inter-subjective views of science, or scientific method. Whilst even the scientific community is fraught with argumentation, for the mundane facts such as there is a cup on the table you only need minimal verification. Even the shape of the earth would be easy enough. But even for that there was a time when this was arguable.

However - when it comes to matters of morality - there is simply no scope for ANY morally objective opinion.
It is pointless offering morally objective views in the hope that others on the Forum with agree with the moral point - that is not finding objectivity - that is only getting the agreement of others. For ANY fact to be securely objective it would have to get the agreement of ALL, without any reasonable exception.

This topic drones on and on. It is fruitless. There is no condition where any moral could achieve objectivity. Morals involve values. Values invite opinion. Opinion is subjectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

V A wrote:

'Objective is independent of opinion and beliefs but objectivity is justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus.'

This is a contradiction in terms, and therefore false. Objectivity can't be those two things at the same time.

And the JTB definition of knowledge is a conceptual mess anyway.

Which two things?
I stated Justified True Belief based on the necessary intersubjective consensus.
Scientific knowledge is JTB via the Scientific Method and intersubjective consensus of the relevant group of scientists. What is wrong with that?

If the earth is an oblate spheroid, then the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is true, independent from opinion. Justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus has absolutely nothing to do with the truth-value of the assertion.
If the intersubjective consensus was that the earth is flat, that wouldn't matter a flying f**k. You're confusing what people think is true with what is true.

There could be intersubjective consensus on whatever, but it cannot be knowledge if it is not justified to be true within a certain Framework of Knowledge that is credible.
Example a scientific fact is based on intersubjective consensus conditioned upon the Scientific Framework and System from the Scientific Method and peer review.

Note a scientific fact is JTB leveraged on the Scientific Method and peer review, how could that be a mess?

The intersubjective consensus that the Earth is flat at a certain point in history would have be considered knowledge and fact. It is not totally wrong even now that the Earth was flat based on observation, but it is just not a complete fact.
Even at present that claim that the Earth is "oblate spheroid" is not a complete fact.
In any case, with scientific fact, there is no 100% certainty but subject to available evidence and open to change it new evidence show otherwise.

"what is true" ??
There is no such thing as what is absolute and unconditionally true.
There is no such thing as a thing-in-itself independent of the human conditions.
What is true always include elements of the human conditions.
There are no standalone facts independent of the human conditions.

Note reality is all there is.
But humans are part and parcel of reality.
There is no way, you can extricate the human part from what is reality and to stand apart from reality.

You may claim, the moon pre-existed before there were humans.
The philosophical anti-realists will argue otherwise.

[Peter Holmes]

V A wrote:

'Objective is independent of opinion and beliefs but objectivity is justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus.'

This is a contradiction in terms, and therefore false. Objectivity can't be those two things at the same time.

And the JTB definition of knowledge is a conceptual mess anyway.

If the earth is an oblate spheroid, then the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is true, independent from opinion. Justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus has absolutely nothing to do with the truth-value of the assertion. If the intersubjective consensus was that the earth is flat, that wouldn't matter a flying f**k. You're confusing what people think is true with what is true.

Actually since all we have is inter-subjective opinion upon which to agree our objective "facts" the definition is as good as any other.
Clearly, though, not all inter-subjective consensuses are as good as all the others. Ask any church what they think of God - then compare it to what they say in a Mosque, or Temple.

I would suggest that to get a good and reliable objective fact you would have to apply the inter-subjective views of science, or scientific method. Whilst even the scientific community is fraught with argumentation, for the mundane facts such as there is a cup on the table you only need minimal verification. Even the shape of the earth would be easy enough. But even for that there was a time when this was arguable.

However - when it comes to matters of morality - there is simply no scope for ANY morally objective opinion.
It is pointless offering morally objective views in the hope that others on the Forum with agree with the moral point - that is not finding objectivity - that is only getting the agreement of others. For ANY fact to be securely objective it would have to get the agreement of ALL, without any reasonable exception.

This topic drones on and on. It is fruitless. There is no condition where any moral could achieve objectivity. Morals involve values. Values invite opinion. Opinion is subjectivity.

It looks like we're on the same page about morality. What fascinates me is how tenacious moral objectivists are. They just won't let it go. And the fun fact is that people who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - also think their own moral opinions are facts. I wonder why that is.

As it happens, I think you're wrong about the definition of objectivity as 'justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus' being as good as any other - because intersubjective consensus can only be consensus of opinion, and objectivity is independence from opinion. If intersubjective consensus is conceded, so is the case against what we call truth and objectivity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note for example, "killing a human being by another human being" is morally wrong. This is very objective and is a moral fact as justified by "no sane person would volunteer to be killed" [under not peer pressure etc.] via the highest application of reason.

It is clear to me that you do not have the slightest idea of what objective means.
Humans kill others all the time and for very good reasons.
I personally do no think this is a good idea, but just because I reason it to be so , does not make it objective. It makes it MY opinion. It might also be YOUR opinion, but two opinions (subjective by definition) do not make an objective fact.

I wonder if you also have some exceptions to this rule as I do. Some accept warfare and judicial killing such as execution as perfectly acceptable. And I for one think it is perfectly okay to terminate a person who is terminally ill or has just had enough of life for their own reason.
People argue about where killing is morally acceptable, few have an absolute position.
You have not found an objective moral fact, you have only pushed your subjective opinion.

Your Philosophy of Morality and Ethics is too shallow and narrow.

As I had argued Morality is the Pure Aspects while Ethics is the Applied aspects.

• For example in Pure Geometry, we have the perfect circle, square, triangle as defined with reason.
  But in Applied Geometry, we have all sort of imperfect circles, squares, triangles which are expected to be as near as possible to the respective perfect shapes.

Similarly, in Morality as Pure, like Pure Geometry, we have the pure principles of morality, i.e. the secular objective absolute [perfect] moral laws.

It is in Ethics - the Applied aspects - that we consider exceptions from the absolute moral law in relation to the various inevitable natural circumstances and deviation in practice.
This is why certain justified killings are allowed in Ethics but without compromising the absolute moral law on 'no killing at all' as a guide.

As I had stated, without the secular objective absolute moral law [justified from evidence], one will be like navigating a ship in rocky waters without a fixed lighthouse.

[Peter Holmes]

As I had stated, without the secular objective absolute moral law [justified from evidence], one will be like navigating a ship in rocky waters without a fixed lighthouse.

So what? Your argument commits the fallacy of undesirable consequences.

'Without a secular objective moral law we have no moral lighthouse by which to steer.'

And anyway, the premise is false. Objectivity and secularity are irrelevant here. All we need is an agreed moral code.

[Veritas Aequitas]

V A wrote:

'Objective is independent of opinion and beliefs but objectivity is justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus.'

This is a contradiction in terms, and therefore false. Objectivity can't be those two things at the same time.

And the JTB definition of knowledge is a conceptual mess anyway.

If the earth is an oblate spheroid, then the factual assertion 'the earth is an oblate spheroid' is true, independent from opinion. Justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus has absolutely nothing to do with the truth-value of the assertion. If the intersubjective consensus was that the earth is flat, that wouldn't matter a flying f**k. You're confusing what people think is true with what is true.

Actually since all we have is inter-subjective opinion upon which to agree our objective "facts" the definition is as good as any other.
Clearly, though, not all inter-subjective consensuses are as good as all the others. Ask any church what they think of God - then compare it to what they say in a Mosque, or Temple.

I would suggest that to get a good and reliable objective fact you would have to apply the inter-subjective views of science, or scientific method. Whilst even the scientific community is fraught with argumentation, for the mundane facts such as there is a cup on the table you only need minimal verification. Even the shape of the earth would be easy enough. But even for that there was a time when this was arguable.

However - when it comes to matters of morality - there is simply no scope for ANY morally objective opinion.
It is pointless offering morally objective views in the hope that others on the Forum with agree with the moral point - that is not finding objectivity - that is only getting the agreement of others. For ANY fact to be securely objective it would have to get the agreement of ALL, without any reasonable exception.

This topic drones on and on. It is fruitless. There is no condition where any moral could achieve objectivity. Morals involve values. Values invite opinion. Opinion is subjectivity.

It looks like we're on the same page about morality. What fascinates me is how tenacious moral objectivists are. They just won't let it go. And the fun fact is that people who think morality is objective - that there are moral facts - also think their own moral opinions are facts. I wonder why that is.

You are stuck with the theistic moral objectivists and believe ignorantly I am on the same camp.
As I had stated, what is secular objective absolute moral laws [moral facts] must be justified from empirical evidence and polished with highest level of philosophical critical thinking.

As it happens, I think you're wrong about the definition of objectivity as 'justified true belief based on intersubjective consensus' being as good as any other - because intersubjective consensus can only be consensus of opinion, and objectivity is independence from opinion. If intersubjective consensus is conceded, so is the case against what we call truth and objectivity.

You are so stuck with the concept of 'opinion' despite me providing the dictionary meaning.

Scientific facts are objective and are based on intersubjective consensus leveraged upon the Scientific Method and peer review.
Are you that ignorant of this fact?
You are ignorant of how the Scientific Method and peer review works?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated, without the secular objective absolute moral law [justified from evidence], one will be like navigating a ship in rocky waters without a fixed lighthouse.

So what? Your argument commits the fallacy of undesirable consequences.

'Without a secular objective moral law we have no moral lighthouse by which to steer.'

And anyway, the premise is false. Objectivity and secularity are irrelevant here. All we need is an agreed moral code.

Above make no sense to me.
You need to explain to make it clearer.

[Skepdick]

So what? Your argument commits the fallacy of undesirable consequences.

There is no such fallacy. Being murdered is an undesirable consequence - that's why it is wrong.

'Without a secular objective moral law we have no moral lighthouse by which to steer.'

And anyway, the premise is false. Objectivity and secularity are irrelevant here. All we need is an agreed moral code.

Congratulations. You are figuring out how the socially-constructed system of objectivity works.

Once we all agree that murder is wrong, then the wrongness of murder is a fact independently of what anybody thinks about it!

The wrongness of murder becomes a social fact. A law.